I have a master's degree. My husband has a doctorate. He currently makes $42K doing research (which is a HUGE step up from the $24K he made when he started, with a master's degree). I have a master's degree and the only job I could find was adjunct teaching, which brings in about $10K/year when I'm teaching two classes each term. I'd say that degrees, particularly advanced degrees, in the humanities and social sciences really are not worth the debt you to into to get them, if we're talking about financial payoff. I don't even want to think about how long it will take us to pay off our student loan debts. And, I'm sure people will turn around with "Well you should have been an engineer!" or "Well you should have gone into the medical field!" but, really, we don't need everybody to be an engineer or nurse. We need researchers, we need teachers, we need people to take jobs that require college or graduate degrees but pay comparatively little in return. I think that's where student loan debt gets crushing. I had a job a few years back working part-time at a bargain bookstore ($7/hr). My manager told me that, if he wanted, he could have staffed the store entirely with people with graduate degrees, because there were so many people looking for work and willing to take anything. Granted, I live in an area (the Metro Detroit area) with one of the worst economies in the nation, but when you've got a pile of resumes from people with graduate degrees looking to take a $7/hr part-time job, and 400-500 people applying for $18K/year jobs that require a BA and work experience (and I applied for a number of those), it's hard to say that college is giving most people a leg up on anything other than debt. ETA: Regarding the GPA issue, I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant. I never had an employer ask for my transcript outside of academia. Having a higher GPA does not, as far as I know, increase your chances of getting a job. That's just one more myth we sell young people, that if they just work hard enough they'll get a good job (and if they don't get a good job, it's because they didn't work hard enough).

I find it really interesting that everybody is talking about how "political" and "politically correct" GS are (which may or may not be true, I don't know), when the AHG pledge defines marriage in a political, contentious way ("marriage being a lifelong commitment before God between a man and a woman"). Sounds like conservative political correctness, to me.

I wonder if some of the issue is also class-size related. They may try to keep the remedial courses very small, but have larger sections of the other courses. I know that when I teach the remedial writing course the number of students in each section is less than when I teach the regular first year comp course. They may be trying to keep the remedial courses to 20 students or fewer, but allow 80-100+ students in Calculus.

FWIW, I think most people who want to be doctors end up adjusting their goals. It's not unusual for more than half of my first-year college students to say they are pre-med, and very few of them are going to make it past first year bio, and of those who do, a bunch more will be weeded out during organic chem. I would consider steering her towards a community college and an AA in a medical field. If she does well in her courses, she could go on, but if she struggles, at least she'll come out working in a field that interests her.

This. I've had this happen. If you go to the counter once you get to your gate, you can talk to somebody and they'll be able to help you out there most of the time. If that doesn't work, once you are on the plane, the flight staff will make sure that you are seated next to your child. I imagine that anybody who is enough of a jerk to not want to switch their seat to help out a 5yo kid is probably enough of a jerk that they'd enjoy sitting next to said 5yo the entire flight.

Both of these. I have an anxiety disorder. The array of symptoms that stress and anxiety can produce is truly amazing. However, it's also not uncommon for doctor's to write off symptoms, especially those of women, as psychosomatic without really investigating the cause. I'd probably keep an open mind about the possibility of it being stress-related, and do what you can to reduce stress--since that can't hurt in any case--but to push for more than simple blood work, just to rule out physical causes.

I don't think the issue is a "morally liberal stance on sex," but raising the marriage age quite dramatically. AFAIK, the age at which people begin having sex has not gone down; if anything, it's gone up. What has changed is that people are getting married much, much later. In less "morally liberal" cultures, people married and began having sex in their teens. I don't think you're going to find a society where there is a morally conservative stance on sex where people are putting off both marriage and sex until their mid-to-late 20s. Just a few generations ago, getting married at 17 or 18 wouldn't have been aberrant at all, and most women marrying that age would have been marrying men in their 20s.

Saying that people under 18 are too young to have sex--and that anybody who does have sex with them is a predator and should be branded as such--is to go against pretty much everything we know about human nature. In all seriousness, has there been a society in all of human history in which the average person routinely waited until they were 18 or older to have sex? Over 21? I mean, you sound here like you'd be fine at making the legal age for sex 25. Is there a society in all of human history where anything but a small minority of people have waited until their mid-to-late 20s to begin having sex?

I have no advice, but sympathy. We have a shared yard. Our landlord owns two homes on one lot, and our apartment and one of the apartments in the other duplex share the yard. For three years, this was lovely. We had nice neighbors who took care of the yard with us. Then, for two years, we had neighbors who had 2, and sometimes 3, large dogs. They seemed to think that our yard was nothing but a dog bathroom. They NEVER cleaned up the poop. Well, that's an exaggeration. They'd clean up the poop maybe once every 2-3 months, sometimes going longer. We left notes. We talked to them. We talked to the landlord. The landlord talked to them. Other neighbors talked to them and the landlord. Nothing. It was just disgusting. I mean, at times the yard was almost covered in poop; you couldn't walk a foot without finding some. It reeked year round. I'm pretty sure they didn't pick up any poop the entire winter--which here goes from maybe November to March--and when the snow all melted, it was pretty much the most disgusting thing I'd ever seen or smelled. Several times this spring I got fed up, and spent about 2 hours in the yard, shoveling it up and piling it by their back steps. It would make quite a pile--a small mountain might be more descriptive. The pile would sit there for up to a week before they did anything about it. It was just bizarre. I was left wondering if they were some kind of dog-poop hoarders. Otherwise, they were the most irresponsible dog owners and worst neighbors that I've ever seen. Thankfully, they moved this spring, and we can once again use the yard.

I agree, but if we want to talk about "universal morality," this would be a VERY hard sell, given that it's been prevalent, as far as I know, across cultures and for most of human history. I think we could argue very rightly and clearly that sexual interactions with prepubescent children are wrong, period. But when it comes to consensual sexual relationships between two people who have gone through puberty, then I think it's very, very difficult to start making sweeping judgments.

This much have been years and years ago. Today he'd be a registered sex offender and not allowed anywhere near anybody under 18.

I think it's probably a valid argument for there being nothing perverted, predatory, or sick about it. Now, we can say that it doesn't fit with our modern lives, and that's fine. But, unless we are willing to write off vast swathes of men across history as dangerous, creepy pedophiles because they were in relationships with teenagers, then I think we need to acknowledge that we are setting up arbitrary cultural boundaries--which all cultures do, and which is fine--rather than protecting children from some great harm. I'm not comfortable with calling teens "young girls," either. My son has a 5-year-old girl friend over today: she is a "young girl." A 16-year-old teenager is NOT a young girl, but a young woman, and it's demeaning to refer to her as such. And, yes, it does matter, because when we talk about older men marrying "young girls," it certainly does matter whether the "young girl" in question was six years old or sixteen years old, and if we don't see a distinction there, then I'm not really sure what to say.

Has "politically correct" lost all meaning? Do we know just throw it around to insult points of view we don't like? Because, if you think there is anything "politically correct" about the way this girl's parents raised her, you are either using the term wrong or don't understand most people very well.

There are few things I set extremely firm boundaries on, but the Kindle is one of them. It's MINE. DS is allowed to use it only when I give him explicit permission. The only times that happens are 1) during sermons at church (I know--bad mom! But, he gets bored, and it's silent, so I let him read or play games on it rather than acting up) and 2) once in a rare while at night when he's reading in bed with me, before he goes into his own bed, and I'm ready to fall asleep before he is. Otherwise, the Kindle is off-limits. I am considering getting him an e-reader in a year or two, though. He reads a lot, and I love that you can look up words so easily on the e-reader.

I've often wondered how many amazing things we're keeping teens from doing by treating them like children. I will say, part of why I find the whole idea that it's disgusting or wrong for an adult to have consensual sex with a person in their mid-to-late teens--and, not just morally wrong, but something that makes a person a predator and indistinguishable from a person who molests or rapes a child--is that it seems to me to be very demeaning to teens, especially teen girls. I lost my virginity at 17, to a friend who was in his early 20s. If there was a "predator" in the relationship, it was me. He liked me a lot and wanted a relationship (at the time, he was living at home and attending college; I was living at home and attending high school; we had no less in common than I would have had with another high school student); I thought he was a nice guy, I knew he'd only had one intimate relationship before and they were both virgins at the time so he was safe and disease-free, and just wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I lost my virginity and had very little further use for him. The idea that, in many states, he could go to prison for that--and often end up getting more time than a man who violently sexually assaulted a woman, or an adult who molested a prepubescent child--and then spend the rest of his life on a public sex offender registry just disgusts me. And that absolutely shapes my thinking on this. Nearly all of my friends, from the time we were maybe 16 and up, dated guys who were older, sometimes by two or three years, sometimes by more. Were they always the wisest or healthiest relationships? No. But, a lot of same-age relationships weren't wise or healthy, either, and I have friends who still, in their 30s, aren't entering into wise or healthy relationships. Certainly, though, the guys involved weren't sexual predators, creeps, perverts, or dangers to society, and I don't see the good in labeling them as such.

There is a lot being done to prevent rape on college campuses. However, while rape is a problem and one to be taken seriously, the specific situation the OP's daughter is concerned about--passing out and being raped while unconscious, presumably in a public area--is not a serious problem. AFAIK, stranger rape is not happening at a higher rate on college campuses than anywhere else. The situations to be particularly concerned about are date rape situations, particularly where heavy drinking is involved.

Does this man have a history of sleeping with 18-year-old women? Are you sure that this is an "area of personal weakness"? Or should any man who might have sex with a woman be barred from teaching, lest their "area of weakness" cause them to sleep with a woman who is 18? And how far should this be taken? I teach college. Should I lose my job if I was found to be having sex with any college student from anywhere? Because my authority over them would be exactly the same as the authority this teacher had over this student. I just had new neighbors move in. The husband is a theater professor, the wife is a nursing student. Is he a "creepy predator" for having a relationship with a woman who he has authority over in the same sense (perhaps more, since he works at the school she attends) this man had authority over this woman? If we don't think that, then it's the age thing. And, if we want to talk about universal morality, the universal part is not on the side of those who would want to argue that older men dating much younger women is wrong. That's been a relatively common practice in most cultures and societies. I can't think of a single religious text that condemns the practice. The idea that it's morally wrong for an older man to have consensual sexual relationships with a younger woman because of their age difference is a very modern idea, and not one we'd be able to find universal support for by a long shot. We can certainly think it's wrong, but we have to accept that our opinion is based on contemporary society and contemporary ideas, not on some universal moral mandate. Again, we can personally find the relationships distasteful. We can question the judgment of both parties. We can say that he violated the terms of his contract and so has no right to complain about being fired. But I don't see any basis for talking about this man as if he has committed some heinous crime against innocent children, which is what it's being made out to sound like.

You used the term "predator." That is a VERY loaded term, and one we apply to pedophiles. Would I think you were doing a good or right thing if you slept with your friend's son? No. Would I think you were a sexual predator? Absolutely not.

Wow. In what sense is this man a "creepy predator"? Was he out hiding in the bushes waiting for an 18-year-old adult woman to come by so he could manipulate and seduce her? I'm just not sure how he was "preying" on this woman. According to the story, by her own admission she initiated the two sexual encounters. And, is it "moral relativism" to recognize that there are differences between a 13-year-old and an 18-year-old when it comes to their ability to enter into a consensual sexual relationship? Again, I'm very troubled with how we apply the "predator" label to adults who have consensual sexual relationships with older teens, and in this case, with legal adults. It does us no good, as a society, to act as if that is no different from the adult who manipulates, coerces, or forces a child or young teen into having sex.

I just want to agree that I think her fears are unfounded, and I'd focus on dealing with that anxiety. Honestly, assuming she's not like hanging out at wild parties where there's lots of drinking and sex, and passing out there, I think the likelihood of her being raped after passing out at night are pretty much nil. I know that the campus where I went to college was actually very safe to walk around at night. There were always lots of people around. I wouldn't suggest going out at 4 a.m., but I know that until about 2 a.m. or so, there was just lots of people around, and I felt very safe. Plus, many college students, especially college women, go out in pairs or groups.

They shouldn't all be treated equally. There is an enormous difference between, say, a middle school teacher having sex with one of the students in his/her class, and a teacher having sex with an 18-year-old student who goes to an entirely different school. I think a teacher having sex (as in this case, consensual sex with an of-age student) with a student who is in their class or would they could reasonably expect to be in their class (so any student in the school) is a conflict of interest and breach of ethics. In that case, I can understand it being an ethical violation and losing their license. I do not think there's any reason for the personal lives of teachers to be policed beyond that, though. In this case, he broke the policy, and I don't think it's unjust that he lost his license. I don't agree with the rule personally, though.

I don't have any van advice, but I did want to say that the Sunshine Radian carseat (I have one and we love it) should fit three across most seats. We can fit the Radian, a Peg Perego infant seat, and my DS's booster across the back of a Honda Accord wagon.

Not to mention that something like 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in some way before they reach the age of 18. When you are dealing with a group that large, I don't think it's really safe to draw conclusions that any particular woman in that group will pose more of a risk than any other. I think it's a highly inappropriate question. I would refuse to answer on principle.

There is a power differential in almost all relationships. Honestly, I think saying that 16-year-old can't consent to sex with an adult is like the argument that all heterosexual sex is rape. In that case, we'd probably want to say that anybody under about 26 isn't an adult who can consent to things, because we know from neuroscience that it isn't until then that decision-making mechanisms in the brain fully develop. And, even after that, we'd have to eliminate most adults from being capable of handling a choice.

I have to admit, I find that kind of demeaning to older teen girls. I was fully capable of consenting to sex at 16 and 17. I have friends who consented to sex at 14 and 15. Would it have been the wisest choice? No. But, it was a choice I was capable of making, and the idea that any guy over 18 who would have had sex with me was a predator who deserved to spend his life publicly labelled a sex offender alongside adults who molested and raped small children just appalls me. I'm just very concerned with how, as a society, we've elided the serious problem of adults preying sexually on prepubescent children who have no capacity to consent with what we seem to think is an equally serious problem of adults entering into consensual sexual relationships with post-pubescent teens. There are good reasons to not want our teens having sex, and good reasons to want them to have relationship with people their own age, but I just don't think this is something that should be a criminal matter.